Moral Education for Young People in Singapore:

Philosophy, Policy and Prospects

Charlene TAN

Associate Professor, Policy and Leadership Studies Academic Group, National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Yew-Leong WONG

Teaching Fellow, Policy and Leadership Studies Academic Group, National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Moral education in Singapore is underpinned by a communitarian ideology that emphasises the

centrality of the community and the importance of social harmony. We explain how this communitarian
philosophy is promoted through the subjects Civics and Moral Education (in primary and secondary
schools) and Civics (in pre-university institutions), and show that this emphasis has inadvertently
resulted in a neglect of the personal moral development of young people in Singapore. We maintain
that more needs to be done to encourage young people to critically reflect on, construct, internalise
and apply their own moral values both in and beyond the classroom. In the final section of the
article, we explore the prospects for doing this in a way that is consistent with a communitarian
outlook.
Keywords: moral education; communitarianism; personal moral development

Singapore is a highly cosmopolitan citystate, with a diverse population. Foreigners

residents) from Europe, the Americas, Africa,

Oceania and the other parts of Asia form about

(including both permanent residents and non-

36% of Singapores population of 4.9-million

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charlene TAN, Policy and Leadership Studies Academic
Group, National Institute of Education, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore; email: charlene.tan@nie.edu.sg

Journal of Youth Studies July 2010 Vol. 13 No. 2 (Serial No. 26) 2010 The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups

89

people. Of the residents (Singapore citizens and

permanent residents), 72.4% are Chinese, 13.4%
are Malay, 9.2% are Indians and 3.2% are
Eurasians, Arabs or members of other ethnic
minorities. Cutting across these different ethnic
groupings and nationalities are a variety of
cultural and religious practices. No single
demographic group is truly homogenous.
Singapore is also one of the most densely
populated countries in the world (7,022 persons
per square kilometre). (See Singapore
Department of Statistics, 2009.)
With this amount of diversity co-existing in

It seems plain that the subject-matter of

moral education is morality: it seeks to nurture
in young people a set of beliefs and values about
right and wrong, good and bad, justice and
injustice, fairness and unfairness, etc. But what
specific beliefs and values are we supposed to
nurture in our young people? It is important that
we get this right, because our moral beliefs and
values guide the way we live our livesthey
determine the standards of acceptability and
admiration in action, thought and emotional
response.

such close quarters, social harmony becomes

extremely vital in maintaining social and political

Many people today are uncomfortable with

stability and ensuring generally uninterrupted

economic growth and prosperity in the country.

the idea of a universal standard of morality.

Motivating this discomfort is the pluralistic notion

The presence of social harmony in turn depends

on the ability of Singaporeans to consistently

that our particular way of doing things may not

be the only way that is right. (This is an

make morally appropriate decisions in an

environment where they are constantly exposed

acknowledgement of the possibility that there

may be other value systems that are just as valid

to myriad influences and an overwhelming

amount of information from other parts of the

as ours, not the relativist view that all value

systems are equally valid.) Nevertheless, there

world. Acutely aware of this, the Singapore

government makes the teaching of moral values

seems to be a core set of moral beliefs and

values that are shared by almost all human

a key feature of the school curriculum. Moral

education is explicitly taught in Singapore

beings. For example, very few would challenge

the claim that acts of murder, theft, rape, slavery,

schools through the compulsory subjects Civics

and Moral Education (CME) at the primary and

genocide, torture or systematic racial

discrimination are wrong and should therefore

secondary levels and Civics at the preuniversity level. This article critically discusses

be prohibited. Most people would also agree that

freedom is worth pursuing and protecting, and

the philosophy, policy and prospects of moral

education for young people in Singapore.

that respect, responsibility, resilience, honesty

and integrity are worth cultivating. This gives us

But what is moral education? What should

we teach in moral education? How should we

90

What is Moral Education?

an initial list of specific moral beliefs and values

to include in the curriculum for moral education.

teach it? The answers to these questions will

provide us with a basis for evaluating Singapores

However, a moral education that seeks to

nurture in young people just this core set of moral

moral education.

beliefs and values is inadequate. Such a moral

education will leave young people in a state of

confusion when confronted with moral

act is interpreted or described by particular

societies or cultures. See Bell, 2009).

controversies, moral dilemmas and novel moral

situations. Simply acquiring a set of moral beliefs

2. The self is essentially a social entity; the

and values will not tell us what we ought to do in

situations where the morality of the options is

notion of the self as something that is

separate from the social roles one plays is
meaningless.

unclear or complex, where some of the values

we subscribe to conflict with one another, or

3. The well-being of the community takes

where we are not even sure what all the relevant

moral questions are. A good moral education

precedence over the interests of the

individual.

must not only nurture in young people a core set

of moral beliefs and values, but also teach them
how to apply these beliefs and values in critical
and creative ways to solve the real moral
problems that they encounter. In short, a good
moral education should teach morality as well
as moral reasoning skills. (For detailed
arguments for this view, see Law, 2009; Lipman,
2003.) With this in mind, let us now turn to moral
education in Singapore.

Philosophy of Moral Education in

Singapore
Moral education in Singapore is
underpinned by a communitarian ideology.
Communitarianism may be characterised by the

A number of writers have pointed out that

an Asian version of communitarianism exists in
East and Southeast Asian countries, like China,
South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore
(e.g. Bell, 2006, 2009; Chua, 1995, 2005;
Kennedy, 2004; Lee, Grossman, Kennedy &
Fairbrother, 2004; Tan, 2008a). East and
Southeast Asian communitarianism emphasises
the centrality of the community in the formation
of the individuals values, behaviour and identity.
The concept of community is premised on the
principle of social harmony, which features
prominently in East and Southeast Asian
societies and is reflected in citizenship education
across these parts of the world (see Chew, 1998;
Cummings, 2001; Thomas, 2002; Lee et al.,

following three claims (see Bell, 2009):

2004; Ahmad, 2004; Roh, 2004). In his research

on values education in the Pacific Basin,

1. Standards of morality are located in the

Cummings (2001) found that the concerns

common to East and Southeast Asian

cultural factors of particular societies, in the

interpretive framework particular societies

educational leaders are also collectivist in nature;

he gave the following examples: providing a

use to understand and navigate the world.

(This is not the relativist view that the morality

guide for behaviour in daily life, encouraging

civic-consciousness, fostering an appreciation

of an act depends on whether that act is

regarded as good or bad by particular

for the heritage and strengthening national

identity, and fostering family values. It is

societies or cultures, but rather the view that

the morality of an act depends on how the

therefore not uncommon to find East and

Southeast Asian leaders exhorting their fellow

91

citizens to sacrifice a personal right or a civil or

political liberty so as to fulfil their duties and

family, coupled with the key values of consensus

and harmony. Chua (1995) commented that the

responsibilities towards their family and

community in cases of conflict between personal

Singapore government privileges Confucianism

as a good foundation for propagating Asian

interests and social or national interests (Bell,

2006, 2009; Kennedy, 2004; Tan, 2008a). In

values among the younger generation. The

Confucian influence can be further seen in the

return, East and Southeast Asian governments

generally see themselves as having an obligation

values listed under the heading Singapore

Family Values in MOE (2006a, p. 9): love, care

to provide the social and economic conditions

that facilitate the fulfilment of these duties and

and concern, mutual respect, filial responsibility,

commitment, and communication. The reference

responsibilities (Bell, 2009). Thus, in China,

Japan and Singapore, it is mandatory by law for

to filial responsibility points unequivocally to the

Confucian teaching of filial piety.

children to provide financial support for their

elderly parents; in Korea and Hong Kong, the
state provides tax and housing benefits to make
it easier for children to care for their elderly
parents at home.
In Singapore, communitarianism further
takes on a paternalistic flavour. It is therefore no
surprise that the Singapore government has
prescribed the specific Asian values that

21 Vision:

l Every Singaporean matters

l Opportunities for all
l Strong families: our foundation and our future

undergird the communitarian ideology. These

values were introduced officially in 1991 as a

l The Singapore heartbeat

national ideology under the heading Our Shared

Values (MOE, 2006a, pp. 10-11):

l Active citizens: making a difference to society

Our Shared Values:

l Nation before community and society before

self

l Family as the basic unit of society

l Community support and respect for the
individual

l Consensus, not conflict

l Racial and religious harmony
The communitarian values stated here bear
semblance to Confucian teachings, with its
accent on the nation, community, society and

92

B e s i d e s O u r S h a r e d Va l u e s a n d
Singapore Family Values, communitarianism in
Singapore is also promoted through Singapore

The Singapore 21 Vision was launched in

1997 by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. It
aims to strengthen the heartware of Singapore
in the 21st centurythe intangibles of society
like social cohesion, political stability and the
collective will, values and attitudes of
Singaporeans (Singapore 21 Report, http://
www.singapore21.org.sg/menu_s21report.html).
The final platform for the Singapore Ministry
of Education to transmit communitarian values
is citizenship education, known locally as
National Education. These are its key

messages:

l Singapore is our homeland; this is where we

belong.

l We must preserve racial and religious

harmony.

l We must uphold meritocracy and

incorruptibility.

l No one owes Singapore a living.

through these two subjects. In fact, moral beliefs

and values are inculcated in Singapore schools
both directly and indirectly through the school
ethos and various academic and non-academic
programmes. We have chosen to focus on these
two subjects because we are interested in the
manner in which the state ideology is translated
into moral education policy through the official
syllabi.

l We must ourselves defend Singapore.

l We have confidence in our future.
Since 1997, National Education (NE) has
been implemented in all Singapore schools. NE
aims to develop in all Singaporeans national
cohesion, the instinct for survival and confidence
in the future. It is infused into the formal
curriculum through subjects such as Civics and
Moral Education (CME), Social Studies and
History, and through sports and enrichment
programmes. Again, we see here the strong
presence of Confucian values in the emphasis
on strong families as the foundation of society
and the key to social cohesion, racial and
religious harmony and nation-building.
The emphasis on citizenship in the
communitarian philosophy of East and Southeast
Asian countries explains why moral education in
these regions tends to combine and conflate
citizenship and morality (see the essays in
Grossman, Lee & Kennedy, 2008). Such is the
case in Singapore. In the next section, we
analyse the syllabi for CME for secondary
students (aged 13-16) and Civics for preuniversity students (aged 17-19) to see how
communitarianism is promoted in these subjects.
It should be noted that we are not suggesting
here that moral values are transmitted only

Moral Education Policy in

Singapore Schools
Civics and Moral Education (CME)
for Secondary Students
CME aims to nurture a person of good
character, one who is caring and acts responsibly
towards the self, family, community, nation and
world (MOE, 2006b). The syllabus adopts
Lickonas (1992) framework of moral knowing,
moral feeling and moral action in the
development of a morally upright individual.
Moral knowing refers to the students knowledge
of what is right and their ability to define good
values, formulate sound moral principles and
explain what constitutes good character and right
conduct (MOE, 2006b, p. 5). Moral knowing thus
concerns the cognitive aspect of morality. Moral
feeling refers to the affective aspect of morality.
It involves a conviction and motivation to uphold
and apply good values while considering the
consequences of our actions and the feelings of
others. Moral action refers to doing the right thing
that proceeds from moral knowing and moral
feeling. The syllabus emphasises the need for
students to develop such skills as moral

93

reasoning, critical thinking, responsible decision

m a k i n g , p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a n d e ff e c t i v e
communication, and be given many and varied
opportunities to put good values into practice
(MOE, 2006b, p.5).
The designers of CME identify six core
values as the foundation for good character:
respect, responsibility, integrity, care, resilience
and harmony (see Table 1 for their official
definitions). That the CME syllabus is designed
to support communitarian values is evident in its
statement that these six values complement and
reinforce Our Shared Values, the Singapore
Family Values, the Singapore 21 Vision and the
National Education messages (MOE, 2006b, p.
7). The syllabus document suggests a number
of approaches that schools may adopt when
teaching CME:

l The Cultural Transmission Approach, which

seeks to impart desirable social and cultural
values.

l The Consideration Approach (PerspectiveTaking), which aims to develop an empathic

and caring personality.

l The Modified Values Clarification Approach

(Responsible Decision Making), which hopes
to help students clarify their values through
examining their personal feelings and
behaviour patterns.

l The Cognitive Development Approach (Moral

Reasoning), which is based on Kohlbergs
theory about students progress from a selfcentred perspective to a higher stage of moral
development.

students are encouraged to engage in

projects in the school and in the community.

Civics for Pre-University Students

The Civics syllabus for pre-university
students aligns itself to the CME syllabus for
primary and secondary students. Identifying
Making a Difference as its central theme, the
Civics syllabus aims to nurture students to play
an active role in helping to improve the quality of
civic life in the community and to take the lead in
service to others (MOE, 2006a, p. 1).
Specifically, students should learn about the
importance of active citizenship through service
to others, the necessity for everyone to take an
interest in the needs of the community and the
belief that everyone can play a role in effecting
positive changes in society in their own way
(MOE, 2006a, p. 1). Four main ideas come under
the theme of Making a Difference (MOE, 2006a,
p.2):

l Our Growth and Development: Taking a

proactive approach to becoming a leader in
service.

l Our Families and Communities: Leaders

serve to meet the needs of the people and
the community.

l People Who Inspire Change: Everyone can

play a part by leading in service.

l Singapore Our Future: Everyone can lead in

making Singapore unique.
The Civics syllabus recommends an

helps students to clarify their values through

inquiry-based teaching approach, with specific

discussion questions designed to enable

the process of story-telling and reflection.

students to learn more about the community they

l The Narrative Approach (Story-Telling), which

94

l The Action Learning Approach, in which

live in, reflect on the meaning of service in

leadership and recognise their roles in the

political socialisation (Chew, 1998; Tan & Chew,

2004).

community they live in, and to enable teachers

to provoke thinking and discussion among

Second, although a number of teaching

students (MOE, 2006a, p. 4). The syllabus adds

that process-based approaches are also useful
in helping students reflect on, inquire into and
internalise the values of good leadership. The
syllabus includes a practical component that
involves students in service-learning projects that
aim to meet the real needs of the community.

A Critique of Moral Education in

Singapore
Three comments can be made about moral
education in Singapore schools. First, the
overarching objective of moral education in
Singapore is the inculcation of communitarian
values for the purpose of nation-building. The
communitarian thrust in the CME syllabus is
clearly seen in the number of topics devoted to
the community (26) as compared to the number
of topics devoted to the self (11) (see Table 1).
The slant towards communitarian values is
even more apparent at the pre-university level,
where the words moral education have been
dropped from the name of the subject. Although
the nurturing of moral beliefs and values is still
going on at the pre-university level, the emphasis
is on exhorting students to translate those beliefs
and values into action by serving the needs of
the community and nation, and to lead others in
performing such services. Clearly, the primary
purpose of moral education in Singapore is
citizenship training; students are inculcated with
national values for the purpose of economic and

approaches have been suggested in the CME

and Civics syllabi, and schools have the
autonomy to select the approaches that best
meet their needs, it appears that the Cultural
Transmission Approach is privileged as it lends
itself most naturally to the communitarian
ideology. This approach emphasises the
inculcation of desirable values which are upheld
by our society and are also significant in our
cultural heritage (MOE, 2006b, p. 8). The
desirable values referred to here are those stated
under the headings Our Shared Values,
Singapore Family Values, Singapore 21
Vision, and National Education (see above).
Although the CME and Civics syllabi claim that
moral knowing requires the students to define
good values, formulate sound moral principles
and explain what constitutes good character and
right conduct (MOE, 2006b, p. 5), these values,
principles and definitions of good character and
right conduct have already been decided for the
students. The students are not invited to think
through and construct their own understandings
of what is right, sound and good. While this
sidesteps the worry that the students may end
up with moral beliefs and values that are wrong
or inconsistent with communitarian views, it does
mean that students do not have a chance to
develop the habits and skills of moral reasoning,
critical thinking, responsible decision making and
problem-solving when they are taught these
communitarian values and principles in the early
stages of their moral education. Therefore,
students may find it difficult to engage in higherorder thinking when asked to consider moral

95

Value

Respect
Definition: A person
demonstrates respect when he
believes in his own self-worth
and the intrinsic worth of all
people.

96

Topics that focus on self

Respect for self (lower

secondary)

Standing up to peer
pressure
Respect for self (upper
secondary)

Topics that focus on others

(friends, family, community,
nation and world)

Respecting others

Respecting our homeland

Respect for the beliefs

and traditions of others

Respect for the law and

fundamental liberties

Respect for life and nature

Responsibility

Responsibility to myself

Family roles and duties

Definition: A person who is

responsible recognises that he
has a duty to himself, his
family, community, nation and
the world, and fulfils his
responsibilities with love and
commitment.

Responsible decision
making

Being a team player

Preparing for my future

financial needs

Being responsible
members of the
community

Dating, marriage and

parenting

Being an active citizen

Practising responsibility in
dealing with ethical issues
in the life sciences

Practising integrity in all

spheres in our lives (upper
secondary)

Integrity

Being a person of integrity

Definition: A person of integrity

upholds ethical principles and
has the moral courage to stand
up for what is right.

Practising integrity in all

spheres in our lives (lower
secondary)

Value

Topics that focus on self

Topics that focus on others

(friends, family, community,
nation and world)

Care

Caring for my family

Definition: A person who is

caring acts with kindness and
compassion. He contributes to
the betterment of the
community and the world.

Caring for my friends

Caring for the schools

Caring for the community

Caring for the nation

Being a caring member of

the global community

Resilience in the family

Being a resilient citizen

Being a resilient nation

Resilience

Definition: A person who is

resilient has emotional
strength and perseveres in the
face of challenges. He
manifests courage, optimism,
adaptability and
resourcefulness.

Being resilient in the face

of challenges

Harmony

Inner harmony

Family harmony

Definition: A person who

values harmony maintains
good relationships and
promotes social togetherness.
He appreciates the unity and
diversity of a multicultural
society.

Being happymy values

and attitudes

Relating to others

Harmony in the
community

Living in harmony with our

environment

Promoting peace and

stability in the nation and
the world

Total number of topics

11

26

97

controversies, moral dilemmas and new moral

situations: either they lack confidence in

human rights; their conscience should oblige

them to act in accordance with the principle of

performing these higher-order thinking skills, or

they have become so pessimistic about the

respect for all human beings. Lickona (1994)

elaborates:

prospect of alternative views being given a fair

hearing that they do not bother to participate even

Stage 5 also has a strong social conscience,

if they could perform these skills. If one wonders

why young people in Singapore have become
increasingly apathetic towards social and political
issues, one needs look no further for a reason.

Stage 5 thinkers to mentally stand outside

their social system and ask, Are things as

Third, there is an underlying tension

good as they ought to be? Is justice being

served? Are individual human rights being

between the Cognitive Development Approach

recommended in the moral education syllabi and

fully protected? Is there the greatest good

for the greatest number? And as I go about

the dominant official discourse of

communitarianism in Singapore. The Cognitive

my personal life, do I show respect for the

rights and dignity of all the individuals I deal

Development Approach is based on Kohlbergs

theory of moral development for students to

with? (p. 15)

progress from a self-centred perspective to a

higher stage of moral development. According
to Kohlberg, children proceed from unquestioned
obedience (Stage 1) to whats-in-it-for-me
fairness (Stage 2), interpersonal conformity
(Stage 3), responsibility to the system (Stage
4) and finally principled conscience (Stage 5) as
young adults. Based on this framework, the
Singapore moral education syllabi, with its focus
on communitarian ideology, appear to stop at
Stage 4, with no progression to Stage 5. A person
at Stage 4 believes that one should fulfil his or
her responsibilities to the social or value system
the person feels a part of, keep the system from
falling apart and maintain self-respect as
someone who meets his or her obligations
(Lickona, 1994). But Lickona, echoing Kohlberg,
argues that teenagers should be encouraged to
proceed to Stage 5 by showing the greatest
possible respect for the rights and dignity of every
individual and supporting a system that protects

98

based on the moral principle of respect for

individual persons. That principle enables

If Kohlberg is right, then what Singapore

students need is to progress from considering
the good of community and preserving the rules
of society to authentic moral motivation and
reasoning, guided by abstract moral ideals rather
than mere societal rules (Tan, 2008b). Tan and
Chew (2004) first put forward this suggestion
when they analysed the previous incarnation of
the CME syllabus for primary and secondary
levels. They observed then that while children
are encouraged to progress from self-regarding
motives to a greater awareness of communal
interests, the syllabus makes no attempt to move
the students onto the level characterised by
authentic moral motivation. The revision of the
CME syllabus in 2006 did not address this
problem. Commenting more than a decade ago
that moral values are seen mainly as instruments
for forging national unity and maintaining national
identity in Singapore, Tan (1994) advocated that
students should possess the intrinsic reverence
for the moral life and appreciate the intrinsic

categorical force of morality based on a

metaphysical and religious world-view (p. 66).

and authentic moral motivation and selfactualisation, within a communitarian framework.

Gopinathan (1980) averred that moral education

in Singapore lacked the humanizing effect of

We discuss this question briefly in the final

section of this paper.

moral education for the individual, its integral

place in a conception of education as a liberating
and self-fulfilling process (p. 178). Although the
comment was made twenty years ago, it still rings
true today.
We should clarify that our main concern
here is not that moral education in Singapore is
largely focused on nurturing communitarian
values and attitudes in our young people. After
all, it is hard to object to the inclusion of the values
of respect, responsibility, integrity, care,
resilience and harmony among the core set of
moral values that human beings generally
subscribe to. It is also hard to argue against the
importance of communal interests. Even
societies that have championed individualism
and liberalism are experiencing a shift towards
placing greater emphasis on communal interests
(see Bell, 2009; Law, 2007). At least one of the
authors of this paper believes that
communitarianism may in fact be the most
suitable moral, social and political framework for
a country like Singapore, given its demographic,
geographic and economic characteristics.

Personal Moral Development in

a Communitarian System: Prospects
The Singapore government is a paternalistic
one. It adopts the stance that it knows what is in
the best interest of the people it governs better
than the people themselves do, which gives the
government the moral authority to make
decisions on the peoples behalf, even when the
decisions are contrary to the peoples wishes.
However, it would be wrong to think that there is
no personal freedom in the Singaporean society.
While the Singapore government expects itself
to be obeyed, it has also created forums for
citizens to question and provide feedback on
various social issues, and sometimes the
suggestions received do get adopted.
Discussions of a more political nature are
tolerated when they take place on the fringes,
but are tightly controlled in mainstream press.
Direct public challenges to government policies,
however, often result in severe repercussions for

Rather, our chief concern is with the way

the challenger. Whether intended or not, these

actions send to the community at large the

communitarian values and attitudes are taught

in schools. Earlier, we discussed the features of

message that politics is a dangerous game for

those who have not been specially chosen by

a good moral education: it should teach morality

as well as moral reasoning skills. Moral education

the leaders of the ruling party, and so one should

stick to ones own private affairs. Meanwhile,

in Singapore achieves the former reasonably

well, but, in our view, falls short with the latter.

schools are reminded to discourage students

from adopting views and attitudes that are

The question is whether it is in fact possible to

accommodate the teaching of moral reasoning

inconsistent with those stated in the moral

education syllabi and those publicly endorsed by

skills, leading to independent moral development

the government.

99

The reluctance of the Singapore

government to allow open debate on issues with

favour of communitarianism and against systems

that allow for a great deal of personal freedom

deep social and political ramifications, and the

swiftness with which it censures those whom it

(see Bell, 2006, 2009; Blackburn, 2001; Sandel,

2009). But there is no principled reason why

deems to have crossed the line have created a

people who is generally apathetic towards

students cannot be inducted into a

communitarian moral system through a moral

important social and political issues. The

predominant attitude among the population is that

education that invites students to examine and

debate about competing moral values and

the government will take care of these issues,

that it neither needs nor wants our opinions on

systems (see Law, 2007). In fact, a moral

education that requires students to actively

them. So, ironically, the version of

communitarianism practiced in Singapore and

consider the arguments for and against the

adoption of certain moral beliefs or values before

transmitted through moral education lessons in

schools has resulted in a general detachment

constructing their own moral system is more likely

to produce students who understand in a deep

from the community at large.

way why the beliefs and values they have

adopted are good and true, and therefore

Our view is that communitarian goals do not

always conflict with individual rights and freedom;
in some instances, they can co-exist and
complement each other. In the case of

A crucial caveat to note here is that a moral

Singapore, if the objective is to engender greater

attachment to the community at large and

education that encourages students to participate

in critical moral reasoning is not one that permits

encourage greater participation in service to

communal needs, then providing a framework

them to adopt any belief or value they like. Critical

reasoning is governed by rules, so a piece of

within which citizens can genuinely engage one

another and the government in public debate

reasoning is either good or bad. Any moral choice

that a student makes must be supported by good

about social and political issues without fear of

retaliation and without the suspicion that all the

reasoning. It is extremely difficult to construct a

good argument in support of a wrong belief or

talk will ultimately make no difference (because

the decision has already been made by the

value (like It is good to rob little old ladies or

hypocrisy). The advantage of a moral education

government) is an important first step. (Bell, 2009

expresses a similar view.)

that requires students to think critically about

morality lies in its potential to genuinely convince

The provision of this framework can begin

in schools via moral education lessons. Of

100

become more committed and resilient in

upholding them in practice.

students to adopt the right beliefs and values.

How then do we facilitate critical moral

course, it makes sense for schools to nudge

students towards a core set of moral beliefs and

reasoning in a moral education classroom? Law

(2007) and Lipman (2003) offer some excellent

values that constitutes the norms of the society.

A society must have shared values to be

suggestions. Stories involving children debating

with one another about complex moral issues

functional. There are plausible arguments in

(e.g. Lipman, 1983) provide good entry points

to bring younger students into moral discussions.

Thought experiments involving moral scenarios
are also powerful tools to engage students in
moral reasoning. Finally, social innovation
projects that require students to tackle and solve
a real social problem, such as those conducted
by the Riverside School in India (http://www.
schoolriverside.com/), provide an excellent
platform for students to acquire a deep
understanding of real social issues, construct
moral beliefs and values related to these issues,
use their critical and creative thinking skills to
solve real-world problems, and develop a
genuine concern for the needs of the community.

Conclusion
What we are recommending here
nurturing moral beliefs and values in young
people through a critical cognitive engagement
with moral issuesrequires, in the case of
Singapore, a shift in the mindset of moral
education teachers and government leaders. The
obstacle, as we have pointed out, is not
communitarianism, but the reluctance on the part
of the government to allow genuine public debate
on issues that have significant social and political
ramifications. We are convinced that a moral
education of the form recommended here will
engender a greater commitment to communal
values and interests among young people.

References
Ahmad, A. (2004). The making of a good citizen in
Malaysia: Does history education play a role? In W.
O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K. J. Kennedy & G. P.
Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and

the Pacific: Concepts and issues (pp. 195-211). Hong

Kong: Comparative Education research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong.
Bell, D. (2006). Beyond liberal democracy: Political
thinking for an East Asian context. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Bell, D. (2009). Communitarianism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),
The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring
2009 edition). Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://
plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/
communitarianism/
Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good: A short introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chew, J. O. A. (1998). Civics and moral education in
Singapore: Lessons for citizenship education?
Journal of Moral Education, 27(4), 505-524.
Chua, B. H. (1995). Communitarian ideology and
democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge.
Chua, B. H. (2005). The cost of membership in ascribed
community. In W. Kymlicka & B. He (Eds.),
Multiculturalism in Asia (pp. 170-195). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cummings, W. K. (2001). The future of values
education in the Pacific Basin. In W. K. Cummings,
M. T. Tatto & J. Hawkins (Eds.), Values education
for dynamic societies: Individualism or collectivism?
(pp. 277-290). Hong Kong: Comparative Education
research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Gopinathan, S. (1980). Moral education in a plural
society: a Singapore case study. International
Review of Education 26(2), 171-185.
Grossman, D. L., Lee, W. O. & Kennedy, K. J. (Eds.).
(2008). Citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific.
Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research
Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Kennedy, K. J. (2004). Searching for citizenship values
in an uncertain global environment. In W. O. Lee, D.

101

L. Grossman, K. J. Kennedy & G. P. Fairbrother

(Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific:
Concepts and issues (pp. 9-24). Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong.

Singapore Department of Statistics. (2009). Population

trends 2009. Retrieved April 30, 2010 from www.
singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2009.pdf.
Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics,
Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Law, S. (2007). The war for childrens minds. London:

Routledge.

Tan, C. (2005). Driven by pragmatism: issues and

challenges in an ability-driven education. In Tan, J.
& Ng, P. T. (Eds.), Shaping Singapores future:
Thinking schools, learning nation (pp. 5-21).
Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Lee, W. O., Grossman, D. L., Kennedy, K. J. &

Fairbrother, G. P. (Eds.). (2004). Citizenship
education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and
issues. Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Lickona, T. (1992). Educating for character: How our
schools can teach respect and responsibility. New
York: Bantam Books.
Lickona, T. (1994). Raising good children. New York:
Bantam Books.
Lipman, M. (1983). Lisa (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Institute
for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children,
Montclair State College.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education. (2006a). Revised pre-university
civics syllabus. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (2006b). Civics and moral
education syllabus: Secondary 2007. Singapore:
Ministry of Education.
Roh, Y. R. (2004). Values education in the global
information age in South Korea and Singapore. In
W. O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K. J. Kenney & G. P.
Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and
the Pacific: Concepts and issues (pp. 257-274). Hong
Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong.
Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: Whats the right thing to
do? New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

102

Tan, C. (2008a). Creating good citizens and

maintaining religious harmony in Singapore. British
Journal of Religious Education, 30(2), 133-142.
Tan, C. (2008b). From moral values to citizenship
education: the teaching of religion in Singapore
schools. In Lai, A. E. (Ed.), Religious diversity in
Singapore (pp. 321-341). Singapore: ISEAS & IPS.
Tan, T. W. (1994). Moral education in Singapore: a
critical appraisal. Journal of Moral Education, 23(1),
61-73.
Tan, T. W. & Chew, L. C. (2004). Moral and citizenship
education as statecraft in Singapore: a curriculum
critique. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 597-606.
Thomas, E. (2002). Values and citizenship: Crosscultural challenges for school and society in the Asian
Pacific Rim. In M. Schweisfurth, L. Davies & C.
Harber (Eds.), Learning democracy and citizenship:
International experiences (pp. 241-254). Oxford:
Symposium Books.